{"id":92423,"date":"2023-05-03T02:26:52","date_gmt":"2023-05-03T07:26:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=92423"},"modified":"2023-05-03T02:57:20","modified_gmt":"2023-05-03T07:57:20","slug":"92423","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=92423","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Is SCOTUS ready to step in on an “assault weapons” ban?<\/a><\/p>\n

Since the\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0decision was delivered last June, the Supreme Court has been largely content to let lower courts wrestle with the opinion and what it means for the future of gun control laws like a ban on so-called assault weapons or even the new concealed carry restrictions put in place by the state of New York after its \u201cmay issue\u201d regime was struck down by SCOTUS in\u00a0Bruen<\/em>. Now the Court is being asked to weigh in on an \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban imposed by the city of Naperville, Illinois, and Second Amendment advocates are hoping that at least four justices are ready and willing to take up the request for an injunction.<\/p>\n

The National Association for Gun Rights is hoping the Supreme Court will do what the Seventh Circuit did not; put a halt to Naperville\u2019s gun ban while the case plays out in court. On Monday afternoon, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett\u00a0directed Naperville officials<\/a>\u00a0to respond to NAGR\u2019s request no later than noon on May 8th. Coincidentally (or not), that\u2019s the same day that U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn has told the plaintiffs in the challenge to the statewide ban on \u201cassault weapons\u201d to reply to Illinois\u2019 request to stay his injunction against the \u201cassault weapons\u201d and \u201clarge capacity\u201d magazine ban, which was handed down last week.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), in conjunction with the National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR),<\/span><\/span>says <\/span><\/a>the law conflicts with the high court\u2019s\u00a0<\/span><\/span>NYSRPA v. Bruen <\/span><\/span><\/i>decision <\/span><\/a>last year, which ruled gun laws must align with constitutional text and history.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Well, that\u2019s not gonna happen. The bigger question is whether the Supreme Court will step in now or wait for another case involving a ban on so-called assault weapons to reach its doorstep.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

While I do expect the Court to take up bans on modern sporting rifles, NAGR\u2019s request is still somewhat of a longshot in my opinion. Like\u00a0Antonyuk v. Nigrelli\u00a0and\u00a0Gazzola v. Hochul\u00a0(New York-based cases which the Supreme Court turned away back in January), the request for intervention in\u00a0Bevis v. Naperville\u00a0is coming at a very early stage in the litigation, and justices may very well want to see how the Seventh Circuit deals with \u201cassault weapons\u201d bans in a post-Bruen\u00a0environment first rather than jump in right away. The Seventh Circuit kept Naperville\u2019s ban in place, but since then Judge McGlynn has imposed a statewide injunction on the Illinois law banning the sale of \u201cassault weapons\u201d and \u201clarge capacity\u201d magazines, and the issue will be coming back to the Seventh Circuit in the very near future.<\/p>\n

The Seventh Circuit isn\u2019t the only appellate court with a gun ban case on its calendar either. In the Ninth Circuit a challenge was just filed against Washington State\u2019s new \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban, and oral arguments have already been held in\u00a0Miller v.\u00a0Bonta; a lawsuit taking on California\u2019s \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban that\u2019s pending in the court of U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez. The Fourth Circuit, meanwhile, has been holding on to\u00a0Bianchi v. Brown\u00a0since last December, and an opinion on the constitutionality of Maryland\u2019s \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban could come at any time.<\/p>\n

Those pending cases are all a little further along in the legal process than\u00a0Bevis v.\u00a0Naperville,\u00a0and I wouldn\u2019t be surprised if SCOTUS ends up declining to intervene while they wait to see how the lower courts are addressing these types of bans. That certainly wouldn\u2019t be my preference, but the Court works on its own timeline, much to the frustration of gun owners and Second Amendment advocates who\u2019ve not-so-patiently waited for years for SCOTUS to formally acknowledge what we all know to be true; commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles lawfully possessed by millions of Americans for self-defense, hunting, recreational shooting, and just in case the fecal matter hits the oscillating blades are indeed protected by the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.<\/p>\n

Still, I don\u2019t think we\u2019ll have to wait too long for the Supreme Court to take up the issue, even if justices decline to intervene in any requests for preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders. I\u2019m of the opinion that the justices are holding off until a few more lower courts have issued decisions of their own, and\u00a0Bianchi\u00a0is on pace to be the first gun ban case to be fully briefed, argued, and decided by an appellate court since the\u00a0Bruen\u00a0decision and its \u201ctext, history, and tradition\u201d test was outlined last year.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m actually surprised that we haven\u2019t seen anything from the Fourth Circuit in\u00a0Bianchi, especially since it seemed like the three-judge panel who heard oral arguments late last year was inclined to deliver an opinion on the ban rather than kick the case back down to district court for a new trial in light of the\u00a0Bruen\u00a0decision. My guess is that\u00a0Bianchi\u00a0will be the case that grabs the Court\u2019s attention, and while I\u2019ll be disappointed if the Supreme Court turns away\u00a0Bevis\u00a0at this early stage, I don\u2019t think it portends bad news for gun owners when an \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban case\u00a0is finally heard by the nine justices.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Is SCOTUS ready to step in on an “assault weapons” ban? Since the\u00a0Bruen\u00a0decision was delivered last June, the Supreme Court has been largely content to let lower courts wrestle with the opinion and what it means for the future of gun control laws like a ban on so-called assault weapons or even the new concealed … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92423","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92423","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=92423"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92423\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":92426,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92423\/revisions\/92426"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=92423"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=92423"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=92423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}